Post navigation

It’s Thanksgiving this week here in the States. This year, as with each passing year for this site, we’re going to have a holiday-themed clip instead of analysis. This year more than others, though, I’m really not down to celebrate when indigenous people keep getting the short end of the stick. So naturally, we picked a clip that’s pure fire. We hope you enjoy. In anticipation, here’s a picture for the only thing we should be celebrating: pie. Lots of pumpkin pie.

This week, in addition to the clip on Wednesday, we’re going to recommend 1993’s Grumpy Old Men, a film that spans years, holidays and romantic partners. This week will also see a trailer preview from Talicia, which is where we have an announcement. Talicia has some pretty cool stuff going on for her on the personal front. As such, she’s going to take a step back from Trailer Tuesdays. When you’re part of the Backseat family, life comes first, hands down. We’re so happy for Talicia, and we’re here for her every step of the way. We didn’t want our readers to wonder where she had gone. The door is always open for her.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve been pining for nostalgia lately. Not going back as far as the 1980s, but heading to the time of my youth as a proud Xennial: the 1990s. No movie screams 1990s more than Kevin Smith’s cult classic Clerks (1994), which covers the misadventures of Dante Hicks (Brian O’Halloran) as he manages an extra shift at a Quick Stop convenience store over the course of one eventful day that just won’t quit. Here are five reasons to check it out this weekend.

#1 – “I’m not even supposed to be here today!”

This is a battle cry for any fan of the movie, but it’s even more relevant if you’ve worked retail. For my fellow retail survivors, you know the drill: someone calls out sick, and then you get the panicked phone call from management to please, please, pretty please come in and cover. Somedays, you really need that day off, but you go in for either the extra cash or out of the (misguided) goodness of your heart. And you know what happens? The same thing that happens to Dante: crappy customers, no appreciation, and the longing to leave. Dante is so relatable, from the passive-aggressive signs he posts to the complaining. It was supposed to be your day off too, dammit.

#2 – The dark comedy is everything

I love dark humor, within reason (there are some jokes that go from pitch black to bad taste that lose me). Luckily, Clerks manages to stay well within that sweet spot of humor without veering into the poor taste territory, which is a feat considering some of the subject matter. Between the necrophilia, cancer jokes and pornography, that’s saying something.

Snoogans.

#3 – The frank talk about sex

There’s a great piece of dialogue early on in the film that needs to be studied. Dante has a heated argument with his girlfriend Veronica (Marilyn Ghigliotti) over sexual partners. It broaches the subject of double standards, gender norms, and the parameters of communication and assignment of meaning to different sex acts. Given the current climate of slut shaming, I think a lot of conversation could be had over this scene. Plus, there are parts that are terribly funny. That always helps.

#4 – Randal

Jeff Anderson’s portrait of sarcastic slacker Randal Graves is iconic. Sure, Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (director Smith) are funny, but Randal is next level hilarious. Part of that stems from the fact that the character inevitably reminds you of someone you know, whether it’s a sibling, colleague or best friend. The charm rests in the one-liners and scheming: we’d hate this person in real life, but then we look around, see someone like that, and realize how much of a blast that person is. There’s no shame in admitting you like Randal, because he makes life interesting and says everything you wish you could in a world without consequence. His speeches and sarcasm are the true highlight of the film.

I aspire to this level of customer service.

#5 – A slice of 90s goodness

The 1990s had a charm to it that shines through in filmmaking. A few films from this era were directed in black and white (hello, Pi [1998]). Many of them had great soundtracks, and Smith’s films are no exception. He put a personal favorite of mine in there: Girls Against Boys, who contributed the song “Kill the Sexplayer” to the soundtrack (Eli and Scott for life, bitches). Maybe it’s being a 90s kid, but the whole vibe established just takes me back and brings me joy. We need that right now.

True story: I didn’t watch Say Anything (1989) until this past September, when John Cusack came to town to do a Q&A after the screening. After years of hearing about the film and being asked why I hadn’t seen it yet – including one friend who told me I was dead to him (sorry, Mark) – I finally got to witness it. I’ve heard a ton of criticism regarding Cusack’s character, Lloyd, in his pursuit of dream girl Diane Court (Ione Skye). Here’s where I’m going to differ greatly from the criticism: Lloyd isn’t the one we need to be worried about – it’s Diane’s dad, James (John Mahoney).

Those plane seats look suspiciously comfortable.

Backing up a bit, let’s talk about Lloyd. Common criticism: he’s a nothing-special guy who somehow convinces class brain Diane to go out with him, and borderline stalks her after they break up. Lloyd doesn’t have much going for him: he’s not getting top marks, he’s not getting into the best schools, he doesn’t have a solid job lined up, and he’s pretty unclear about where to go, be it the workforce or the military. What we do see of Lloyd on his own is pretty reassuring. Lloyd babysits his nephew frequently, providing a buddy-like companion to the very young child of his stressed, single-parent sister Constance (Joan Cusack). He has harsh words for the caddish Joe (Loren Dean) regarding the emotional games Joe plays with Corey (Lili Taylor). Rather than shrug off his responsibilities to hold the keys of partygoers, he holds onto the bag of keys so that no one drives home drunk, despite that he really wants to spend time with Diane. He teaches little kids how to kickbox. Most of all, this is a kid who thinks long and hard about his future and expresses a desire not to become part of the corporate machine (as evident in his famous “I don’t want to sell anything” speech), but to spend as much time as possible with Diane, the person who matters to him. And when she dumps him at the behest of her father, he refuses to bash her to the group of guys gathered around him, who offer up revenge plans designed to nurse fragile egos (“Man, all you gotta do is find a girl that looks just like her, nail her, and then dump her, man.”).

Stick with the guy that makes sure everyone gets home safe.

Diane’s father James, on the other hand, has the titular policy with his daughter: that she can tell him anything… but really, he’s more of a “do as I say, not as I do” kind of guy. Diane’s whereabouts and aspirations must be conveyed to her dad at all times, from going out all night to pursuing a fellowship. On the surface, this appears to be a concerned parent, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. However, the crux of this comes in what her father doesn’t say: even when pressed, he won’t confess to embezzlement, and places pressure on Diane to dump Lloyd so that she doesn’t get distracted from her academic and implied long-term professional goals. Even when Diane explicitly asks if the ongoing criminal investigation into her dad’s financial dealings is rooted in fact, he chooses to lie to her and push her toward her fellowship in England, urging her to dump the supportive guy who’s been teaching her how to drive and socially interact. In fact, it’s this push that really takes a turn for the sinister when he tells Lloyd, “You’re not a permanent part of her life. You’re a distraction.”

Creeper.

It’s that sentence right there that got me thinking: what if Diane wasn’t the antisocial brain by choice, but one driven to that path by her father? She admits early on that she didn’t know anyone in her graduating class until the party, indicating that she has not gotten the chance to socially interact with her classmates. There’s wanting the best for your child, but demanding extreme transparency, limiting age-appropriate social relationships, and refusing to be honest regarding a far-reaching legal matter that could very well implicate her as well paints a pretty gross picture of a controlling parental figure that wishes to remain number one in his child’s life. If there’s no Lloyd, then Diane will keep towing the line to meet her dad’s expectations and find someone her father deems an appropriate mate. The problem with that line of thinking is that the person some deem best suited is actually not the best match at all. In total frankness, men in the late 1980s were far more commonly focused on their women propping them up to pursue their dreams. Hence, if Diane met someone at the fellowship, his goals are going to matter more, and she’ll be expected to be the one who maintains the household while he pursues his dreams, all while serving as the intellectual sounding board that furthers his career. And while James can criticize Lloyd as not having much going on in the life department, he is all about Diane’s aspirations. True, you could make the argument that he’s setting up a meal ticket, but Lloyd Dobler goes all out for Diane: he embraces her work at the senior center because it matters to her; he teaches her how to drive because she doesn’t know how and wants to learn; he’s willing to drop everything and go with her to England because he wants to support the woman he loves; he doesn’t blink twice when presented with going to see her father in prison to talk with him because it’s horrifically painful for her, and he wants her to have that sense of closure before a huge milestone. For the love of all things holy, if you find someone who is that focused on your wants and dreams – who remembers the damn song that was playing when you first had sex, that overlooks a convicted felon of a family member, that would rather spend their time with you than making someone else richer – then you’ve got a good egg on your hands right there. Diane has dreams, and Lloyd sees her as a person with dreams; therefore, he wants to move heaven and earth for those dreams to come true. And you do not throw someone like that away – or encourage someone you love to throw away someone like that – unless if you’ve got a serious problem with being top priority without any questions asked in return.

Boo. Hiss.

In the end, women don’t lust after Lloyd because he stands with a boombox outside of a window – women want someone who is going to be there, who is going to be our ride or die buddy that wants our happiness more than their own pride. Diane’s dad trying to undercut that type of love – something so many people in the world would love to have, that dream of having someone like that in their lives – points toward a toxic parent/child dynamic. For a first-timer, the dynamic was creepy in its evident isolation of a brilliant young woman who happens to find someone who loves her far more than he loves a sense of being personally uplifted. When you find someone that wants your dreams to happen that badly, hold onto that; it doesn’t happen every day.

The next two trailer summaries (starting with this one) deal with a subject that has taken on a specific urgency every since the fateful 2016 U.S. presidential election. With the advent of an administration so hostile to every minority group imaginable, the LGBT+ has suffered particular indignities these past weeks: namely, the danger of being defined out of existence.

As a cis-gender, straight, white woman, I’m not an ideal person to tackle this topic. But I wanted to highlight this trailer from Netflix about Marsha P. Johnson, the transgender woman who led the 1969 Stonewall Riots. The reason I wanted to talk about this: I found out about Stonewall completely by accident. I was taking a bus tour during my first trip to New York City several years ago and listened to the guide explain the story of Stonewall while we drove through Greenwich Village. I was both fascinated and shocked that I’d never heard of this badass fight against the abuse of those in authority, who constantly harassed NYC’s LGBT+ community simply because they could.

Now other filmmakers have attempted to tell the Stonewall story, but have done so with in the same patronizing manner of telling the story through a cis-gender, straight narrative, thereby still erasing the perspective of those who fought for their right to exist. What I wish to do instead is highlight the importance of a complete record of social history. Too often dominant cultures try to write people and events out of existence because it’s too inconvenient to acknowledge that there are those who refuse to fit into any category that’s forced on them. It took a riot to get everyone’s attention once. I’m hoping that this time around, we know more about this struggle to be true allies for the fights ahead.

I know this is late on Sunday, but I am in a haze after hosting a preteen sleepover. #Prayers4Erin #sendcaffeine #sosleepy

This week, we’re jumping into some interesting cultural moments. Wednesday will see an analysis of Say Anything (1989). Thursday will bring a recommendation for Clerks (1994), because the sarcasm alone demands worship. I’d write more, but I’m so very tired. See you on the flipside.

Here’s the deal: I love video games. Can I tell you what make and model jock strap Mario wears in Super Mario Galaxy? Nope – I’m just in it to have fun and blow off some steam at the end of the day. There are people that take it rather seriously. So seriously, in fact, that they join gaming competitions and make a go of being declared world champion. Lucky for us, Seth Gordon gave us a peek into the world of competitive arcade gaming with his 2007 documentary The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters. It covers the standoff between champion Billy Mitchell and challenger Steve Wiebe for high score of Donkey Kong. Here are five reasons to watch it this weekend.

#1 – Billy Mitchell is… something

Mitchell, the reigning champ at the time of the film’s shooting, is regarded by all interviewed as a legend. Mitchell is every bit the part, with his flowing hair and grandiose speeches. The self-importance is, in a word, staggering. Bonus: he was the basis of the character Eddie Plant in Pixels (2015), a full two years before Mitchell lost his title for cheating. Oh yeah – watch this documentary bearing in mind that Mitchell lost the title.

#2 – Nicole Wiebe is not here for your shit

Challenger Steve has a wife at home, Nicole, as well as two kids. Nicole clearly loves her husband, but you can tell watching this documentary that she’s annoyed with the extreme focus on a video game. Yes, Steve had gotten laid off and was feeling low, but this woman was clearly holding the household together while he was playing games, and a few biting remarks show some cracks in her unwavering support (not to mention the pleading of his kids. It’s heartbreaking). It reminds me a bit of a couple I once knew: wife worked/raised the kids, husband had health problems, and so he stayed home and gamed. She ran the household/children while he was posting gaming videos; the level of frustration in this relationship was uncomfortable to watch on so many levels (for the record, if she had snapped, I don’t think a jury would have convicted). With the display of these guys pretending to be masters of the universe, we get a woman who’s trying to be the rock at home. Nicole’s the real hero here.

Nicole is the real MVP.

#3 – There’s a real-life application for mathematics!

Remember how most of us rolled our eyes during math class and bemoaned that we’d never use this information? In this film, you see Steve making calculations to better unlock how to approach a game. While this probably isn’t the example that your math teacher had in mind, it’s pretty cool to see the application of math toward a goal. Proof that not everything in high school is useless filler.

#4 – The soundtrack is fun

The soundtrack of this documentary is so 1980s-driven it’s glorious. For the first 20 minutes, you’re grooving along to recognizable hits as “You’re the Best” from The Karate Kid (1984) to Survivor’s “Eye of the Tiger”. As a bonus, it also incorporates Grieg’s “In the Hall of the Mountain King,” which is packed with such emotion that you can’t help but associate it with mischief and antics (it’s also a personal favorite of mine). The musical choices really add to the documentary.

*headdesk*

#5 – Peering into the world of gamers

One running motif of this documentary: these gamers really, truly do feel that they are athletes. They speak of training, devotion and the spoils of championship, much like a basketball or baseball player. I’m honestly a little bewildered at the amount of ass they think a well-played game of Asteroid can carry, but… I’m not about to pop dreams today. You do you.

Upfront confession: I am not a fan of Don Bluth’s catalog of work, as I find him cloying and too cutesy. However, as my college mentor once told me, “Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have value.” As much as I continue to hate to admit it, he’s onto something (grudgingly, thank you, Greg). I’m not the biggest fan of Bluth’s An American Tail (1986), but given recent events, we need to talk about this one.

Keep skipping, kid.

An American Tail follows Fievel Mousekewitz, a cute-as-a-button mouse who lives with his parents and siblings in Russia. Fievel’s family decides to head to America after a bad incident (more on that in a minute), as they firmly believe “there are no cats in America and the streets are filled with cheese” (good luck getting that out of your head). Along the way, Fievel is thrown overboard from the ship upon which he’s traveling; he miraculously survives and winds up on the shores of America, then is taken under the wings of kind strangers. Believing him dead, his devastated family tries to carry on, all while their son attempts to find them. Several songs and a community-filled stand against cats later, he’s reunited with his family. Swell of heartwarming music, and exit the feeling in the glow of family togetherness.

Family togetherness.

Except that we need to look more closely at the very specific plot points of this story. Fievel isn’t just Russian – his family is Jewish to boot. In fact, the inciting moment that facilitates the move to America comes from an antisemitic attack: the Mousekewitz family lives in the home of the Moskowitz family, which is burnt down in a Cossack attack, prompting flight to America. On top of that, once Fievel is in America, he’s sold to a sweatshop for cheap child labor. His parents wallow in depression at the loss of their child, despite that their daughter Tanya insists he’s still alive. Meanwhile, a mouse named Bridget – from Ireland – helps rouse the other mice to fight against the cats, and uses her connections to an alcoholic politician mouse to find this kid’s family. That is a lot to pack into an animated film directed at children.

I cannot even.

Except that here we are, 32 years later, and the themes in this film matter so much right now. Children are still separated from their parents at the U.S. boarder – people who have attempted to flee horrific conditions like religious and political persecution, where the system has failed them, and they only want asylum so that they’re not killed. The whole idea of the American dream still stands for those who are trying to escape Hell: in America, there’s supposedly a chance to outrun all that ails you, to prosper in a place where there’s more justice and opportunity, from safe drinking water to an education to a better roof over your head – as bad as it might be, trust me, it’s better than what they’ve fled. The rose-colored glasses optimism is present in this film as desperate families daydream of how everything is perfect in America, a place which we then see houses problems such as poverty and exploitation. Then add the layer of anti-Semitism: in my current location, our local Jewish center has reported a serious uptick in violence and threats. Not to mention the fact that in Pittsburgh, a fucking synagogue was shot up recently, killing 11 people. There’s an armed militia making its way to the border to intimidate already-scared women and children. We can claim that we’re more enlightened, yet this film has aged incredibly well – and that should terrify us. In 1986, a film was produced that addressed the horrendous circumstances of fleeing one’s homeland through the eyes of a scared kid, the hyper-idealism of immigration in the face of said flight, the sorrow of familial separation, the seedy underbelly of city life, and the need to take a stand against an oppressive group making life difficult for entire communities. In 32 years, this film holds as much water, and that is not right. We shouldn’t be looking back and saying that things are still the same; we shouldn’t look at a film that’s over three decades old and recognize that fucking nothing has changed. We should be looking back and saying, “Kids, there was a time when this rang true, but it’s a better world now. No one bombs you if you’re Jewish, and we’re all more tolerant of people who are escaping really bad situations.” We’ve learned nothing, and human rights should not be stalled out in an animated film from the 1980s that criticized the treatment of immigrants.

The cats here suck, kid.

I want to write a snappy conclusion to this, but I can’t. I can’t make a joke about this film and what it presents to us. It’s too raw and too relevant. So what I implore you to do, dear reader, is to go back to this film, then look ahead. In another 32 years, do we still want to say that persecution that forces people to uproot their lives only to have them shattered is alright? Do we still want our country closed off to someone who is desperate and wants to live? Because that’s what we need to ask, and we need to figure out how we’re going to look at ourselves in the mirror after we’ve made our decisions.

Ok…I’m definitely seeing this one. With the emotionally draining shitshow that’s ever present in our lives, a little magic and innocence is definitely in order.

I can’t begin to express the skepticism I had upon hearing that Disney was “remaking” Mary Poppins. Ok, scratch skepticism. It was outright exasperation.

With all their live-action remakes that are ironically lifeless, plus the endless barrage from the Marvel franchise (I just can’t anymore), Disney has sort of blown it with me. I wasn’t remotely interested in checking this out. I loved the original Mary Poppins – even as all the nastier elements came out about how it was made and how much the book’s author hated it – I still hold it as one of the childhood favorites I want to see passed down to the next generation. Then I watched the actual trailer for Mary Poppins Returns…

So it’s a sequel and NOT a remake! And here is Emily Blunt emoting the perfect blend of playfulness and prissiness that made Julie Andrews’ Mary Poppins so wonderful (seriously, after Dorothy Zbornak, I wanted to be Mary Poppins when I grew up. Hell, I still do.). Plus, the cast is everyone you want to see in a British fairy tale. Now, there are definitely some homage elements to it. For instance, there’s a Bert character, though it’s not Bert, who’s played by Lin Manuel-Miranda. The animation has a Bed Knobs and Broomsticks feel to it (more so that the animation that was in the original Mary Poppins), which is appropriate given that Angela Lansbury is one of the featured performers. Finally, wonder of wonders, Dick Van Dyke is even in this and still as spry as ever, apparently.

The trailer has kept it heavy-handed with the whimsy, so it’s not clear that they’ll have the same infectious humor as the tea party scene or the pathos of Mr. Banks keeping his upper lip ever stiff as he goes to receive his marching orders from the bank. But around Christmas time, I’ll be looking for something sweet and fun to take my mind of the troubles. Maybe I’ll look up at the clouds when wind changes and find a little magic floating down to earth.

The important thing: ARE YOU GOING TO VOTE ON TUESDAY?! Because I come from Rochester, NY, which has a long tradition of voting. Susan B. Anthony would be greatly displeased if she heard that I wasn’t voting. And in the grand tradition of Susan B., everyone here in Ra-cha-cha votes and puts their stickers on her grave because she fought hard for that right. You should too.

This week, we’re feeling a bit salty, so fair warning. Wednesday, we’re taking a look a film that’s been on my mind lately with the absolute shit show going on right now: An American Tail (1986). People have driven me to Don Bluth, and I’m mad as hell. We’ll follow up those thoughts with a visit to The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters (2007). If we’re going to have a wild week, we’re going to have it together. In the words of Sophia Petrillo, “Fasten your seat belt, slut puppy.”

I walked into Colossal (2016) thinking it would be a fun, campy movie about a monster. Boy, was I wrong – I sold this sucker way short based on synopsis alone. The story follows Gloria (Anne Hathaway), a woman who realizes that she’s somehow the gigantic monster that’s terrorizing Seoul, South Korea. It’s far more than what it appears on paper. Here are five reasons to watch it this weekend.

#1 – Alcoholism

Trigger warning: if you or someone you know is an alcoholic, you’re going to get slapped with this theme early on. Gloria has a problem with the bottle, and she’s moved from functioning alcoholic to someone whose life has entered the tailspin phase. Her life’s a mess: she has no job, her relationship is in shambles, and she’s forced to move back home. It’s not pretty in the least, and she knows she needs help, but can’t quite ask for it. This aspect can be hard to watch, but it’s honest and it throws it all out there for us to see. Her drinking isn’t funny, as it’s portrayed in most comedies – it’s a problem that’s destroying her life bit by bit. This film presents alcoholism without the judgment and hand-wringing.

#2 – The Nice Guy

Slow clap for Jason Sudeikis, who plays bar owner Oscar in this film. Over the years, Sudeikis has been quietly building his dramatic performance portfolio. We still expect to see him doing funny things thanks to his time on Saturday Night Live because he’s a talented comedian. However, a role like Oscar helps drive home that he can act. He does a great job here as Oscar, the dude who appears so sweet and helpful and lovelorn, then turns slowly and deliberately into the dreaded Nice Guy: someone who thinks he’s owed something, who the world done wronged, and is a fucking nightmare to escape. I hope more people notice him doing this kind of work, because he fit so well here.

Boo! Hiss!

#3 – It ticks off the Godzilla box

Godzilla fans, unite! I’m really surprised that this film didn’t do as well at the box office because of the giant-monster-smashes-big-city component. You’d think that in the age of things like Pacific Rim (2013) that we’d be cheering the huge battles – let’s face it, that was half of the appeal of Power Rangers, which continues to get love from fans that have grown up. This film can be serious, but it’s also got a cool monster destroying a city, and a monster-on-monster battle. That’s got to count for something.

#4 – It’s equal parts funny and serious

For a film that was advertised as light-hearted and funny, it does have some serious moments (see above). The deft part about this effort is the fact that it strikes a balance between serious and funny. Watching Hathaway dance and seeing the monster mimic her movements is pretty funny. So are her moments of realizing that she’s the creature, which she plays with excellent comedic timing and charm. It reminds us why we liked her so much pre-Les Miserables (2012) awards show campaign (you know exactly what I’m talking about – that awards campaign was obnoxious, and it’s taken a bit to forgive her). The true skill comes from packing in a heavy theme and lesson. That’s art.

A friendly reminder of how much we love Anne.

#5 – The message

So, the message here, without spoilers: it’s all about overcoming your circumstances. I don’t want to give away too much since the impact of the plot as it unfolds is pretty deep. That said, the cast does a great job here. There’s so much feeling and warmth integrated into this film, and it presents themes and scenarios rather than beats us with them. I think it has the potential for someone who is struggling to see this film and embrace its message of breaking free. The world’s a tough place with hurting people, and there’s a chance you’ll see yourself here.